Jump to content

Talk:2015–16 Zika virus epidemic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Location in the title?

Shouldn't the title indicate the location of the outbreak? See links ot recent outbreaks on Dengue fever outbreaks and links under See Also on Outbreak. juanTamad (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Brazil is a little too specific. Would anyone object to something like 2015 Zika virus outbreak in the Americas or 2015 Western Hemisphere Zika virus outbreak? These describe the present situation adequately (How else do you describe Brazil, Latin America, and The Caribbean?) and reflects WHO's prediction for it to spread further. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Move history of the Zika outbreak to this page

I propose moving most of the history portion of Zika virus to this page. Events of the ongoing outbreak in Brazil, including the microcephaly, should be here rather than there. See the pages on Ebola: Ebola virus, Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, and Ebola virus disease and other outbreak pages. juanTamad (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I'm working on a revision here. I'm suggesting a title change to Zika virus outbreak in the Americas" since it has spread beyond Brazil. juanTamad (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've currently got a proposal to include the Zika Virus article in In The News. I dropped this Brazil article after being told there that the Virus article was in good shape but the Brazil article was not. So please take that into consideration before gutting the Virus article prematurely. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Also 'In the Americas' won't do - the latest CDC travel advisory covers Cape Verde in Africa and Samoa in Oceania.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
In 12 hours I'll have finished this Zika_virus_outbreak_in_the_Americas_(2015_-_present). I'll replace the Brazil page with this. Probably better to link to In the News to this new page about the ongoing outbreak. juanTamad (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Linking ITN to here would require people there to reverse their current view that this article is in poor shape. It won't have helped that the recent changes lost what was being said in the ITN blurb (which I've now added back). And as pointed out in my previous comment 'In the Americas' is unsatisfactory because the latest CDC travel advisory covers Cape Verde in Africa and Samoa in Oceania (and there'll presumably be more such non-American countries soon) - Oceania and Africa are two more bits of info 'lost' by recent changes which I'd like to add back, but which I'm a bit reluctant to do just yet for fear of highlighting the inadequacies of the current title before a new one is agreed.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The Americas is where the current outbreak is taking place, so it is appropriate to call it the Americas (Cape Verde is not important). See Zika Virus in the Americas — Yet Another Arbovirus Threat. The history of presence in Africa and Oceania belongs in the history section of the Zike virus/fever pages, not on this outbreak page. Sorry about deleting the sentence on other warnings. I'm still working on it. juanTamad (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the current outbreak really is confined to the Americas, then the article would seem to need to explain to our readers (and to editors at ITN) why the CDC has just advised against travel to 2 places in Africa and Oceania (which I lack the necessary info to be able to do).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Also it should seemingly be Zika virus outbreak in the Americas (2015–present), to meet our MOS Dash standards (which is something else lost by recent changes - see this item in our Edit History: 02:04, 24 January 2016‎ Hvn0413 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,808 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Hvn0413 moved page Talk:Brazil Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present) to Talk:Brazil Zika virus outbreak (2015–present): MOS:DASH) (undo | thank)).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That said, thanks for all the hard work you're putting into this.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The big news since May 2015 is the pandemic spread of this disease into the Western hemisphere. Isolated outbreaks on Cape Verde and Samoa are incidental. I don't think that negates calling it a spread into the Americas. Unaware of the dash MOS. juanTamad (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I was no longer primarily talking about the article name. If you were part of the 80 to 90% of humankind who lives outside the Western Hemisphere, as I am, then anything that suggests that the epidemic is spreading beyond the Western Hemisphere is disturbing. So if the CDC is issuing travel warnings about Cape Verde and Samoa we would like Wikipedia to tell us precisely why, and in particular whether or not this is because the virus has spread there from the Western Hemisphere (it's much less disturbing if it's been there for years, but our article doesn't currently tell us that). So if those travel warnings are just mentioned without explanation that can be seen as detracting from the quality of the article regardless of its title. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Tlhslobus spot on. I ve made these comments on the Zika virus page all along. Otherwise, I actually dont see the good work of juanTamad who in his impatience is acting a bit disruptive with page moves, deletions and such. theres no deadline. The good shape that the Zika virus page is in, has come from careful incremental editing.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of cases confused?

The same number (2782+) is being used as the number of cases of Microcephaly and the number of cases of the Zika virus, both for Brazil.

Which is it?

It's the cases of Microcephaly. I've changed the infobox table to reflect the number of cases is unknown. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The table needs to indicate clealry that those are reported cases of microcephaly thought to be linked to zika virus infection, not cases of zika fever. juanTamad (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed this by moving it to a note. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 02:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

CDC briefing for clinicians

Here's a nice presentation on Zika from the CDC; it's a link from "|Zika Virus — What Clinicians Need to Know". About 15 slides down there's a nice map, source Pan American Health Organization - which is WHO/PAHO copyrighted. Might be worth getting permission. Shows the growth in microcephaly cases. juanTamad (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Section headings

Like to microcephaly is not a symptom. It belongs under epidemiology, and symptoms belong on the Zika fever page. juanTamad (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Support. If there's consensus, I suggest integrating 'Symptoms' into the disease page (Zika fever), deleting here. That's the way all the outbreak pages are that I've seen, makes sense. juanTamad (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The "most widespread outbreak of Zika virus in history"

Not sure this is best way to express this, not that it isn't widespread and most widespread in history, but there's only one other notable outbreak I think, Yap, and smaller ones in the Pacific, and it appeared in Cape Verde islands. Ebola west Africa uses the expression, but there were many smaller Ebola outbreaks, starting with the first recognized, in the 1970s, I think it was. juanTamad (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Different regions

The WAPO mentioned a test in the Piracicaba region, while Oxitec only mentions Juazeiro region. I searched the Oxitec website, but it has nothing about the P region. I suggest to use the region per the comapny, and the related study publication http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003864 prokaryotes (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Their scientific paper states that the 1st test was in Cayman Islands (2010) and the 2nd test was in the Juazeiro region of Bahia, Brazil (2014): [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Stribes? Not in ref given?

I can't seem to find "stribes" (or "stripes" or "white") anywhere in the ref given for this sentence: "Both have white stribes and marks and can spread more diseases." Zeniff (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears to come from the inline article link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_albopictus#Characteristics Though white and black pattern is mentioned. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Some kind of typo and incompetent edit. I pruned the sentence out of the paragraph, as the information is duplicated elsewhere in the article. — QuicksilverT @ 21:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for quick answers!:)Zeniff (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

First patient in Peru

There is one recent case in Peru, check the next link with the news: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-peru-idUSKCN0V71XA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos15insidexxx (talk • contribs) 18:18, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Advertising not wanted

I removed the material added in this edit because I don't see a direct relevance proved to Zika. It would be necessary to show this is actually being used as a response to Zika. I feel like it singles out one anti-mosquito tech over others for no obvious reason. It is sourced to some very obscure paywalled sources, and for example the first journal ref is about a test for olfaction in the lab that isn't obviously relevant to control in the field. And oh, yes... I looked up the "About us" on the company (ISCA Technologies) and saw they were in Riverside, California. Now if you had to guess where in the world User:108.92.189.60 geolocates to, or what the two edits from that IP are about? Yeah, you guessed right. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Fellow editors, please use only sources that meet WP:MEDRS. Primary source material is wholly inappropriate to an article such as this that is already rife with speculation. Speciate (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you cite MEDRS you should at least be aware that it applies to biomedical information. Climate and habitat related information Speciate removed here, does not concern MEDRS. prokaryotes (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That garbage should not be on Wikipedia. Sourced to a university press release? AND it's a bullshit model. No, no, no. Speciate (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Poor Capitol Hill residents will now never find out. The more interesting nugget however is about adaptation to survive during cold winters. An uninvolved editor should re-add the content.prokaryotes (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The MEDRS caution against primary sources makes perfect sense when applied to medical diagnosis and treatment for which it is intended, but seems to me that some use of primary biomedical sources might be appropriate when reporting “breaking news” events like outbreaks of infectious disease. This one, for example is reporting an event, not a finding that might not be replicable. The statement on content guidelines seems relevant here: “a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply” Not sure what you mean by “rife with speculation.” If you’re talking about the as-yet unproven link to microcephaly, the article makes it clear that it is still scientifically unproven. I would say talk about the virus being unleashed as a part of GMO studies is certainly speculative/conspiracy theory BS. juanTamad (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
juanTamad, I'm not sure the current Main Page "In The News" blurb is as accurate as it could be, given the WHO's carefully-worded press release. Would you mind having a look at the discussion? Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your suggestion is spot on. I would say add 'and other neurological disorders' as in the press release, so "Clusters of microcephaly and other neurological disorders likely associated with the rapid spread of the Zika virus " It's accurate and not too cumbersome IMHO. juanTamad (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Definitely this coverage should not be limited to MEDRS. If you want to discuss whether Elvis died of heart arrhythmia, you can rely on ordinary biographical sources, not a medical review. If you want to discuss what states have rattlesnakes, again, you rely on ordinary ecological sources, not a medical review. And if you want to discuss whether mosquitoes capable of transmitting Zika can survive in northern North America, likewise, you can use current studies, not a medical review. A person might accuse the text of US-centrism, perhaps, but certainly it should not be deleted via misapplication of an overbearing guideline. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

2013-2014 Zika outbreaks in Oceania

This outbreak was overlooked at the time. It was actually bigger than the Yap outbreak. I've started a draft in my user space with a draft lede, if anyone cares to help develop it before moving it to mainspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtamad/2013-2014_Zika_fever_outbreak_French_Polynesia juanTamad (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

The beginning template showing the number of cases and the countries affected by Zika just doesn't seem right. I propose it be organized like Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, where it is in cases/deaths descending order, as opposed to alphabetical. This would better show where the outbreak is taking place and how badly those countries are affected. Mr. Spink talk★contribs 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Tata Zica name change relevance

The Tata Zica is having its name changed as a response to the current outbreak, but is this important enough to warrant mention on this article? Alcherin (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

no, not in this article but maybe in the Tata article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Autochthonous cases vs. imported cases

Now that the title has been changed, thank you, the question that arises is which countries to include?: Autochthonous infections only or include travel-related? The table must specify it. Autochthonous cases are reported in 36 countries [2]. But there has 'NOT been ongoing transmission in the countries with travel-related cases (Like USA or European countries). So, if a country has no ongoing transmission, then it does NOT have an outbreak so it does not belong in this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We should create a separate table for countries with travel-related cases. Do not add the UK and the US to the original table. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Zika virus outbreak (2015–present). There have been no objections since the move on 6 February, however, this close should not prejudice a possible future move discussion, as there was some support for a title with the year first and without the word "present".(non-admin closure) Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Zika virus outbreak in Brazil (2015 - present) → Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present) – This outbreak is occurring in several countries. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the naming convention for outbreaks, it should be 2015 American Zika virus outbreak, but since American implies United States, it might be 2015 Zika virus outbreak in the Americas. juanTamad (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Either one, much better. juanTamad (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Alrternatively, might use 2015 Western Hemisphere Zika fever outbreak or 2015 Zika fever outbreak in the Americas, since the disease rather than the agent is often used, but not consistently one or the other. juanTamad (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support change to "Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present)" - Outbreaks are most often international; in this case it includes Oceania and Africa ([3]), so we should not limit the title to geography. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

*Support as it's a worldwide outbreak .... –Davey2010Talk 04:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Well it turns out I'm hopeless and rather clueless when it comes to the whole geography thing!, Support moving the Brazil one and Oppose moving it from Americas. –Davey2010Talk 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If you called it worldwide, then you'd have to start the page with the discovery in 1947, call it the 1947-2016 Zika virus outbreak or something. This move has been superceded by the one below. juanTamad (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose deleting "in the Americas" It is NOT a worldwide outbreak (this particular event). It was already present in Africa, Asia and Oceania. See comment above. juanTamad (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support 2015 Brazil Zika virus outbreak for now. In epidemiology, the location where the outbreak began is used along with the year the outbreak began. As other countries are affected, separate articles can be created but the titles should accurately reflect whether or not Zika is indigenous to that country or whether these are imported cases by simply using the term "cases" instead of "outbreak."

  • Oppose using the misleading and confusing "Americas," term. The country America does have cases but Zika is not indigenous to America. It is indigenous in countries in South America which is a continent that has nothing to do with America the country. It's the migration of these citizens to America that is bringing it here. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
America is a continent with 35 countries. USA is one of them. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The country America is not part of the outbreak. There is no outbreak in America. There is an outbreak in Brazil and other South American countries. The people in America with Zika virus brought it with them from countries in South America. Zika virus is indigenous in South American countries it is not indigenous in North American countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The term is "Americas," not America. juanTamad (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question Why have "Present" in the article title? There is a good chance the outbreak will end, after which the word will no longer be applicable, and the title changed again. What is the policy on having "to Present" or equivalent in a title, or anywhere else in the article? SlowJog (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - The Zika virus in not a world wide out-break at this time, the word "present" shouldn't be included in the title, and the year should be placed before the title. Adog104 Talk to me 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: We might want to hold off for a bit. Cases have already been reported in Australia and with warmer weather on the way, it's possible it will become much larger, which could move the World Health Organization to declare it a pandemic. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The cases in Australia are imported. Important to distinguish between imported vs authochonous cases.juanTamad (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Cases have been reported in Tonga. The title should be changed to maybe: "Zika Virus Outbreak 2015-present" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoricalnoodle (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Zika virus outbreak (2015–present). This is more of a procedural close, as the article was moved on 6 February, and there have been no objections on this page since then. Again, this close does not prejudice a future move discussion with the year first, or without the word "present".(non-admin closure) Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Zika virus outbreak in the Americas (2015–present) → 2015 Zika virus outbreak in the Americas – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Health incidents and outbreaks as its more of an appropriate title for the event instead of placing the year behind the title. Adog104 Talk to me 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"In the Americas" requires no further name change for further spread in the western hemisphere. juanTamad (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Support I'm reposting my comment from above in response to comment that it not have a geographic designation, so it;s given consideration here. *Support this one did not become international after first appearance; it was present in Africa, Asia, Oceania, many years in past, starting with discovery in Africa in 1947. The entry into Americas began explosively in 2015 (obviously a distinct event). If this were like the 1918 flu pandemic, the geography would not be needed, but it isn't. "in the Americas" seems most common description and makes sense. (Zika Virus in the Americas — Yet Another Arbovirus Threat). juanTamad (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Countries

There has also been a reported Zika case in the US Virgin Islands. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Also a case in Texas, reported yesterday - with transmission in Texas through sexual intercourse. prokaryotes (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A case in the Maldives too. http://www.who.int/csr/don/8-february-2016-zika-maldives/en/ Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania

A draft has been started on the outbreaks in the Pacific Ocean islands that preceded the outbreak in the Americas here: 2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania. Please do not remove this notice without explanation. 49.49.136.212 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Zika virus outbreak timeline

I have just started Zika virus outbreak timeline à la the 2009 flu pandemic timeline. There is a lot of information to parse, so I've kept it simple and began with a single entry: the 2007 Yap Islands Zika virus outbreak. We can readily go back to discovery of the virus itself in 1947, and forwards to the current PHEIC. kencf0618 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that 2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania is soon to move out of the draftspace. Alcherin (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for all your work. This is very helpful context. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't known about the succeeding Oceania outbreaks until I read the WHO Director-General's PHEIC statement more closely. Have included citation. kencf0618 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate map image

Is there a reason the map File:CDC map of Zika virus distribution in January 2016.jpg is included twice? Seems redundant to me, are there other images that can provide unique information? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox one to a current-situation map, and I left the one in the article body which shows past outbreaks. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 22:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for working on the map. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Reported in 20 states, when does the MAP need changing? Is there a criteria? -- AstroU (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Florida 'Emergency!' Headline-1: Florida governor declares Zika emergency

QUOTE: "Gov. Rick Scott declared a health emergency in four counties Wednesday after at least nine cases of the mosquito-borne Zika illness were detected in Florida.

Health officials believe all of the cases are from people who contracted the disease while traveling to affected countries." -- AstroU (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Thank you @AstroU: for the source. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Headline-2: First case of Zika identified in Alabama as it emerges virus has now spread to 20 U.S. states and DC

QUOTE: "The Zika virus is now believed to have spread to 20 states, as well as Washington, DC, with 59 reported cases in the United States. All of the cases involved people who were infected abroad before returning to America" -- AstroU (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: There is a great graphic/map of USA.

Reliable, secondary sources

It has been a while since I have seriously edited Wikipedia. I seem to recall that contested statements in Wikipedia articles may be challenged by any editor, perhaps by removing the statement, until a solid, reliable, typically peer-reviewed, secondary source (or sources) are provided. I also seem to recall that primary sources that are contested must be removed forthwith. Have these policies been changed in some way in the last few years? Speciate (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your concerns are answered here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources prokaryotes (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Common-sense should rule; but you are correct that sources are paramount. -- AstroU (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Confirmed outbreaks" in infobox

I'm not familiar with epidemic terminology, but shouldn't this be "Confirmed cases" instead, since there is only one outbreak, not over a million? 93 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to "Confirmed autochthonous cases". That discounts the travel-related infections. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that BatteryIncluded. My mistake. Kyle1278 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick question here? People who contracted The Zika virus via travel and return to their country, should it stay just as a note under Epidemiology. Or should we have a table? I know that right now the definition of the article does not fit for outlying countries with infected people, but with spring approaching, I am sure we will see this number will increase. In the case where there is proof of human-to-human transmission would the definition include them? Cheers Kyle1278 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think a table of countries reporting only travel-related cases would be useful, with a brief explanation in the text about the distinction. — Gorthian (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's never human-to-human transmission for most arboviral diseases (except apparently for sexual transmission with Zika). Arboviral diseases involve a mosquito or other arthropod. If an infected traveler returns to home country and is bitten by a mosquito and the mosquito successfully passes it to another human and then to more mosquitoes, then the virus has become indigenous, and those transmissions are autochthonous. For those interested there are MOOCs on epidemics. juanTamad (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Zika virus disease"?

Is there a reason it's called "Zika virus disease" instead of "Zika fever" in the first sentence? The latter seems more straightforward. — Gorthian (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"disease" sounds more severe than "fever" (but it could be changed later, if deemed apporpriate.) -- AstroU (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The CDC and WHO seem to have decided on Zika virus disease, so that should probably be the name of the Zika fever page. juanTamad (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

American Samoa

I was going to add American Samoa to the list of countries in the infobox, but they officially have only "suspected" cases, partly because they don't have the funds to pay their outstanding bill at the test facility. But American Samoa is listed by the ECDC and the CDC as having ongoing local outbreaks. Should we wait till there are confirmed cases to add AS to the list of countries? — Gorthian (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Add it Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I did. They confirmed 4 cases, one of whom is a pregnant woman. :-( — Gorthian (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed Cases List - United States

I went to the hyperlink for the United States footnote in the "confirmed cases" segment. Reading the news article, it stated that the patients contracted the virus outside of the United States. Is there some way to create a distinction between country of contraction/infection versus country of permanent residence? I think it's important…just to keep the scope of the epidemic in accurate geographic perspective. (Not everyone will look at the hyperlinks for specific info. Also, I think people have enough to worry about these days - without jumping to inaccurate conclusions.) Thanks to everyone who is working so hard on this page. Torfrid (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the text, but modifying the table to clarify nationality of travellers is a tough one. I rather delete the travellers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Important difference between infection acquired in one country, then diagnosed after moving to another, as in a traveler who gets it in Brazil say and then returns to home country, say Italy, which did happen in March 2015. That's an imported case (imported into Italy from Brazil), sometimes designated "Italy ex Brazil". An autochthonous case is one acquired incountry, more ominous since it means the virus has been introduced and is indigenous (see: Autochthonous transmission). juanTamad (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded. A portion of the article should mention the imported cases of Zika; for example Chile has imported cases and appears in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.95.84 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, and attention to this. Torfrid (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page

Although this article's blurb has now fallen out of "In The News" section on the Main Page, it has been proposed as an ongoing news item. Interested parties are encouraged to weigh in on the discussion. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. A PHEIC is no minor matter. kencf0618 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Larvicide

I need some help with rumors in Pyriproxyfen#Hypothesized connection to microcephaly epidemic in Brazil. I'd like to combat irresponsible misinformation, which I believe is best done reporting both the rumor and the retraction. Thanks for your input. fgnievinski (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pyriproxyfen. fgnievinski (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I especially think the retraction by the organization should be noted, and their criticism of the websites that have been making up conspiracy theories with their original statement. Though I don't know if too much should be mentioned in this article, since it is still just a conspiracy theory claim. If included, it should be kept short and to the point. SilverserenC 01:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This article from Science Alert looks very good to me, even pre-retraction. Good talking points. — Gorthian (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The Argentine group "Physicians in Crop-Sprayed Towns" have nailed it right in some occasions, like the use of Monsanto's glyphosate, so they are overly suspicious of pyriproxyfen — but without data, it is paranoia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's quick & dirty draft just to get the ball rolling:

"Rumors that microcephaly is caused by the use of the larvicide pyriproxyfen in drinking water were spread and refuted in early 2016."

If we don't summarize this story, we'll keep seeing attempts at adding the conspiracy theory to the article. fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: included it [6]. fgnievinski (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done It's in the section about microcephaly. I was sorely tempted to add it into the lead as well, since that's all most people read, but decided against giving it that much legitimacy. If the rumor gains too much traction, we can always add it in there. — Gorthian (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Another good report: Zika virus: Brazil dismisses link between larvicide and microcephaly. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexico is in North America

Since Mexico is in North America, the first paragraph should mention South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. I don't know why so many articles in English ignore the fact that Mexico is in North America. Jgsodre (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Some people refer to it as part of Central America and North America interchangeably. But since its officially not part of Central America I guess that would be ok. Adog104 Talk to me 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As discussed in that link, unfortunately North America has suffered weird (I fear racist) attempts at redefinition, which may stop at either the north or the south border of Mexico rather than neatly dividing the New World into North and South Americas only. Unfortunately, clarity in writing for a general audience demands that many of us recognize we live on a continent without a reliable name. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is mostly that Central America does not have a stable definition; it is a part of North America, but some sources define it as everything between the US and South America, and others define it as the isthmian portion of the North American continent. Everything in Central America is in North America; not everything in North America is in Central America. For what it's worth, the UN defines Mexico as being part of Central America for statistical purposes, likely because Mexico is more similar to Central American countries than it is to the anglosphere US and Canada. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First case reported in Ontario, Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/zika-first-case-ontario-confirmed-1.3456196 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.64.160 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The cases counted in this article are those that are locally transmitted; dozens of countries have reported cases of travelers returning home infected with the virus, but since the chances for transmission to other people is small in most cases, they aren't being tracked here yet. — Gorthian (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We should create a table for travelers returning with the virus. Who thinks this is a good idea? Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it would be useful. Maintaining it may be a chore, though.— Gorthian (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... may be a lot of work though yes but, we should give it a go. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual transmission

I am making an edit to remove "rare" from the description of sexual transmission. The CDC and NYT sources essentially say that transmission is mainly/predominantly via mosquito, and that sexual transmission is possible. There is no characterization of the frequency. Given how rapidly the understanding of sexual transmission is developing and the announcment that CDC is tracking 14 suspected sexual transmission cases in the U.S., I don't see support for "rare" in either the original or current sources. Chris vLS (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

From the JGID citation: "If the threat of ZIKV transmission via sexual intercourse were to become substantial..." implies that the current threat of sexual transmission is low, though I agree that using "rare" is a little misleading. Also, which NYT source are you referring to? Alcherin (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I was the one who added "rare", because a couple of sources said just that. Now if I could remember which sources... — Gorthian (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The word "rare" was used by the BBC and NPR. But, as the BBC reporter said, "So far, authorities have said sexual transmission is rare, but last year they would have said any case of Zika was rare, too." There's just too much not known about Zika. But what everyone's emphasizing is that the overwhelming number of cases are due to the mosquito; sexual transmission looks to be relatively rare.— Gorthian (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
We're agreed. It's tricky. We're trying to say that mosquitoes are the main path. But I didn't want to imply that we know that if you have sex 10 times with an infected person, you still might not effect transmission. We have no idea. Thanks for all the work on the page. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Table and proposal

I've been trying to keep the table of countries and cases updated, and it can be a real problem.

  • News sources aren't always sure of what "confirmed case" means. Some of the health agencies split "confirmed" into "clinically confirmed" and "laboratory confirmed". Some don't differentiate. So what we list as "confirmed" for one country isn't necessarily comparable to another.
  • Hunting down a decent source for each country—with numbers!—can be problematic; countries fall off the news radar when there aren't new cases, and many official outlets are sporadic about updates.
  • What I consider the three main health agencies each gather and present data differently, so numbers don't always agree between them. Some of them include countries that the others don't list.
  1. ECDC divides recent cases into two groups: 1) affected within the last two months and 2) affected within the last nine months. Those groups are further divided into two classes: "Increasing or widespread transmission" or "Sporadic transmission following recent introduction". There are no numbers of cases at all.
  2. CDC presents lists of countries with active transmissions, but no numbers of cases.
  3. PAHO WHO has a rich data set, including interactive "epicurves" and data tables, as well as epidemiological updates. All three of these are updated weekly. However, PAHO only covers the Americas.

To ease both editing and updates, I propose:

  1. Splitting the table into two tables: one for the Americas, one for other countries.
  2. Using the PAHO data for all of the countries in the Americas.
  3. Using the usual methods to update the other countries (references for each country).
  4. Including two columns of numbers: confirmed cases and suspected cases.

I've worked up a version of this solution in my sandbox. See what you think. — Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should swap the infobox. On the ecdc website it lists some countries not on the list such as the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu. Should we include these countries? Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Vanuatu has not had any Zika transmission in the last two months, further information can be found here.
As for the Marshall Islands, per this there is one confirmed autochthonous case of Zika, which can be included in the infobox. Separately, it also mentions a confirmed case in Trinidad and Tobago with an official source, which is not included in the PAHO data. Alcherin (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The table is labeled "April 2015–present". Does Vanuatu's case fall into that period? The ECDC counts it in the group of countries affected in the last nine months.— Gorthian (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any actual data on Vanuatu. The only information I can source is the report that blood samples collected before April 2015 contained the Zika virus. This would put it just outside of the nine month range though. Alcherin (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a source from April 2015, though it is unclear whether it was just one case or perhaps more. I added it, and counted it as one case. The ECDC is the one that uses the "nine month" criterion; for this table, I'm going by the date at the top, which is since April 2015.— Gorthian (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Per this WHO bulletin (page 6) the Vanuatu case and Fiji cases were non-autochthonous, so I've removed them from the table. I've also used it to add suspected cases to American Samoa. Alcherin (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we should include Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, and Trinidad and Tobago. I can add those a little later. — Gorthian (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
ECDC also publishes weekly Communicable Disease Threats Reports that contains limited data on some countries. Notably the week 6 report contains detailed data on GBS cases. Alcherin (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for those links. We don't include GBS in our table, and I doubt there's room to include it. But the updates could be worked into the text.— Gorthian (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Brazil, the note in the source by PAHO says Note: The suspected cases in Brazil are unofficial (media monitoring). Brazil Ministry of Health reported minimum 497,523 and 1,482,701 as maximum estimated cases. Report Available at: http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2016/janeiro/22/microcefalia-protocolo-de-vigilancia-e-resposta-v1-3-22jan2016.pdf. This figures reflect the actual situation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good footnote for the table. Brazil gave up counting actual cases a while ago, but PAHO shows at least one recent update. — Gorthian (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


No one seemed to object to my reformulation of the table, so I went ahead and put the new version in. It's still missing a ref for Vanuatu, though. — Gorthian (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Current map in infobox ?

The current map in the infobox showing disease status by country looks not much like this one https://pandemic.internationalsos.com/zika/map ? 152.91.10.22 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The map in this article is from the CDC; as noted at the page you linked to: the CDC "highlights countries and places with active transmission. CDC do not include countries where there is no reported outbreak, although sporadic Zika infections have been diagnosed in visitors after they left (for example Thailand in January 2016)." The map here also does not include the third category on your map: prior to 2015 or previous research evidence in population or mosquitoes, since this article is about the current outbreak only, which started about April 2015.— Gorthian (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to include all countries that have experienced cases since the outbreak started.Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You can request a map be made over at Commons; just be sure to let them know that it will need to be updated frequently. The current map does include all the countries affected since the start of the outbreak per the CDC, it is public domain, and updating it is easy.— Gorthian (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Flags in Table

I feel it may be necessary to swap to reducing the size of the flags or use {{Template:noflag}} with the addition of the Deaths column, as the country names create unnecessary line breaks that extend the table longer than it needs to be. Alcherin (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as the text still fits comfortably around it, the table isn't too wide. Mobile users might have to scroll down to reach the text, but it shouldn't be too wide for even a phone screen. In my original reformatting, I was trying to make it look like part of the infobox, but that doesn't work anymore. I think the "deaths" column is/will be important going forward. Aesthetics is secondary. However, I'll try a couple of tweaks to make it look a little smoother. — Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

When updating the Americas table...

I reverted an edit by Rhetoricalnoodle (who added Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) because I didn't see a source added for it. On further investigation, I found that the PAHO WHO data now includes that country, so Rhetoricalnoodle was right to add it. (Sorry about the hasty revert!) But if the source updates their data, the table has to be updated also: specifically the "as of" date in the Country column header, as well as the published date in the citation. I'll go put that country back in now and do the updates too.— Gorthian (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Totals in tables

The only reason there are totals in the "Americas" table is because the source provides them. I think inserting totals for the other tables is misleading, giving the impression that these are ALL the cases there are, which we know isn't true. And, unless we can source the totals, adding them up ourselves is basically original research. Unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to keep them, I'll be removing totals from the other tables.— Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. I think we should divide the imported cases table into Asia, North Europe, etc. just like the second table. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When did the outbreak begin?

The New York Times "How a Medical Mystery in Brazil Led Doctors to Zika" piece [7] quotes physicians who were trying to find the source of a Dengue-like illness in August 2014 ("It was a few weeks after the 2014 World Cup"). In the lede, we could be more precise that it was confirmed as Zika in April (May?) 2015. But it is also in the title of the article. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing research

I am setting up a mailing list for ongoing research around Zika virus, Zika fever and Zika virus outbreak (2015–present). So if any questions come up here that need expert input, please ping me or post there directly. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget Zika virus outbreak timeline and 2013–2014 Zika virus outbreaks in Oceania. Alcherin (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure. In fact, I am working on {{Zika}} to link them all. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work! Would it be all right to start using it?— Gorthian (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: There were some concerns about the redlinks, so perhaps start slowly and invite feedback, or try to get those links blue. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015–16_Zika_virus_epidemic/Archive_1&oldid=1146522425"